So what do we do? What can we do? Forget censorship. It's socially immoral. It doesn't work, and it makes for awful movies.

....

The public has a bigger role, and that's to insist that any movie with any violence at all - any shooting, stabbing, bombing or rape - gets an R rating. If enforced, this would reduce the violence in PG-13 movies and prevent some violent films from getting made. At the same time, Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese will still be able to make their R-rated movies for an adult audience.

If raising violent films to an R-rating has no effect, and it might not, try NC-17.

So he says that censorship doesn't work, then advocates getting violent movies bumped to NC-17? I mean I'll be the first to admit the ratings system is farked and corrupt as hell, but everyone knows that slapping a movie with an NC-17 is basically a death warrant. No major theater chain will show NC-17 movies.

FTA: Likewise, critics need to let the public know, repeatedly and unrelentingly, each time the Motion Picture Association of America gives a PG-13 rating to celebrations of violence, such as "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Jack Reacher."

The "culture of violence" is a good discussion to have, but this article just sounds like a lot of trolling. Is the MPAA to blame for assigning a PG-13 rating to a movie? The highest-grossing movie with a PG-13 rating of all time, Avatar, pulled in $760,507,625. The highest-grossing R-rated movie, Passion of the Christ: $370,782,930.

Less than half.

From WIKI: "The MPAA administers a motion picture rating system used in the United States to rate films' thematic and content suitability for certain audiences. MPAA ratings carry no force of local, state, or federal law and the rating system is voluntary, applying only to films submitted for rating."

So, the rating system the author advocates has no political force, yet he seems to be campaigning for its use in a political fashion. The MPAA, who acts in the interest of the studios that belong to it, sees the correlation between how much money a film makes and its rating.

Bottom line: there's a lot of begging the question in this article, and not once is the word "parent" mentioned. Where is the discussion of parental responsibility?

A violent video game never killed anyone, but I suppose an Xbox is heavy enough that if you threw it at someone's head it would kill them. Video games are not designed to kill people (only virtual people). Guns are designed for only one thing, to kill. There's a little bit of a difference.

Seriously. I think the takeaway is that we want to be titillated. Whether it's violence or sex, we want things that get our blood moving (um, metaphorically?).

So let's give these goddamn repressive morons what they want - Saving Private Ryan is now verboten, Shaving Ryan's Privates is now A-OK for network TV (but only on Valentine's Day). Instead of censoring the three boobs scene in Total Recall, they censor the rest of it instead. Jenna Haze instantly becomes the favorite to win every "Best Actress" Oscar for the rest of time (well, until her lips fall off).

pjbreeze:I think columnist should listen to some of the old radio shows.

I think, in my completely amateur opinion, that if you compare older movies and radio drama with modern films, you'd find that in older films, the violence is less key to the plot than it is merely an expected plot device. For example, listening to episodes of "hard boiled" detectives like Phillip Marlowe or Johnny Dollar, you may have violence in the commission of a crime, or violence where the good guy has it out with the bad guy, but the incidents usually last seconds and are rarely central to the movie/radio drama. The overarching theme and focus is always on catching the crook and proving "crime doesn't pay."

So what do we do? What can we do? Forget censorship. It's socially immoral. It doesn't work, and it makes for awful movies.

....

The public has a bigger role, and that's to insist that any movie with any violence at all - any shooting, stabbing, bombing or rape - gets an R rating. If enforced, this would reduce the violence in PG-13 movies and prevent some violent films from getting made. At the same time, Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese will still be able to make their R-rated movies for an adult audience.

If raising violent films to an R-rating has no effect, and it might not, try NC-17.

So he says that censorship doesn't work, then advocates getting violent movies bumped to NC-17? I mean I'll be the first to admit the ratings system is farked and corrupt as hell, but everyone knows that slapping a movie with an NC-17 is basically a death warrant. No major theater chain will show NC-17 movies.

This is Seattle. Sure we have a couple AMCs and Regals. But, we mainly have Landmark theaters (which love NC-17s; 6 of the theaters according to their website), and independents (who also don't mind NC-17s; 5 theaters off the top of my head). So, in Seattle its not a kiss of death...but, it is really Seattle-centric (and big city centric) to promote NC-17s.

Seriously. I think the takeaway is that we want to be titillated. Whether it's violence or sex, we want things that get our blood moving (um, metaphorically?).

So let's give these goddamn repressive morons what they want - Saving Private Ryan is now verboten, Shaving Ryan's Privates is now A-OK for network TV (but only on Valentine's Day). Instead of censoring the three boobs scene in Total Recall, they censor the rest of it instead. Jenna Haze instantly becomes the favorite to win every "Best Actress" Oscar for the rest of time (well, until her lips fall off).

It does always confuse me how backwards the priorities of "protecting children" tend to be - sex should be very much a PG-13 type topic given that is when children need to be learning about what normal sex is (I can see more outre stuff like BDSM, Rape, etc., being worthy of a more restricted release), restrictions based on the language used is fairly stupid at all levels as far as I am concerned, and it should be violent films that are most restricted (rather than fairly explicit and extended violent sequences being consider PG). Obviously the labelling of the content is a useful guide for those with particular concerns, but the current way of converting those to the actual ratings seems stuck in 19th century upper class twit morality.

As someone trying desperately to un-do a few years of tolerance of violence to a small child, I am all for banning scenes of blood and gore. But, I don't need the help of anybody else to do it. I simply act like a grown-up and tell my kid, no, you don't need to watch that and you can't act like that. The only time I consider violence to be praiseworthy is in the defense of the defenseless, such as small kids, animals, elderly, handicapped, etc. I wish my kid would hurry up and get to puberty, so his mind starts craving the sight of boobies, and wanders away from blood and gore. But society has a tendency to think anyone who provides girlie mags to teen boys is a perv, so I guess I'll be labeled a perv in a few years.

I think the news is far worse than violent entertainment. Entertainment we KNOW is fake. The news, especially with its "If it bleeds it leads" orientation and scare-mongering "Special reports" is presenting a distorted view of reality that makes believe things that are simply not true. Crime is way down in the US and the country less violent than its ever been. But if you polled the middlin' inormed man on the street, I''d guarantee you they believe the exact opposite.

Moreover that feeling of danger and mailaise seeps into your unconscious even if you are consciously aware that the distortions are not true. I personally very nearly ruined a production of Midsummer's Night Dream by the Washington Shakespeare Company this last Sunday because of it. I was seated in the last row of the lower level on the aisle right next to the exit door, and during the third act the door burst open and a screaming man ran through it. I was half out of my seat, aiming a punch at his groin and preparing to body tackle him, before I was even consciously aware I was doing anything. Fortunately my wife's hand on my shoulder caused me to hesitate just a fraction of a second, and my brain clicked on the fact that the screaming man was the actor playing Bottom doing an entrance to the stage from the back of the theatre.

Until that moment I hadn't actually realized how jumpy a steady diet of news from places like Aurora and Sandy Hook had actually made me

cherryl taggart:As someone trying desperately to un-do a few years of tolerance of violence to a small child, I am all for banning scenes of blood and gore. But, I don't need the help of anybody else to do it. I simply act like a grown-up and tell my kid, no, you don't need to watch that and you can't act like that. The only time I consider violence to be praiseworthy is in the defense of the defenseless, such as small kids, animals, elderly, handicapped, etc. I wish my kid would hurry up and get to puberty, so his mind starts craving the sight of boobies, and wanders away from blood and gore. But society has a tendency to think anyone who provides girlie mags to teen boys is a perv, so I guess I'll be labeled a perv in a few years.

Anyway, Since 1995, movies have gotten more violent and more "realistically" violent, video games have gotten more realistic, porn has become more easily available, drugs have gotten cheaper and more available and more weapons than even are in the hands of Americans.

Magorn:I think the news is far worse than violent entertainment. Entertainment we KNOW is fake. The news, especially with its "If it bleeds it leads" orientation and scare-mongering "Special reports" is presenting a distorted view of reality that makes believe things that are simply not true. Crime is way down in the US and the country less violent than its ever been. But if you polled the middlin' inormed man on the street, I''d guarantee you they believe the exact opposite.

Moreover that feeling of danger and mailaise seeps into your unconscious even if you are consciously aware that the distortions are not true. I personally very nearly ruined a production of Midsummer's Night Dream by the Washington Shakespeare Company this last Sunday because of it. I was seated in the last row of the lower level on the aisle right next to the exit door, and during the third act the door burst open and a screaming man ran through it. I was half out of my seat, aiming a punch at his groin and preparing to body tackle him, before I was even consciously aware I was doing anything. Fortunately my wife's hand on my shoulder caused me to hesitate just a fraction of a second, and my brain clicked on the fact that the screaming man was the actor playing Bottom doing an entrance to the stage from the back of the theatre.

Until that moment I hadn't actually realized how jumpy a steady diet of news from places like Aurora and Sandy Hook had actually made me

Oh, but how glorious would that have been had you cockpunched a stage actor. You'd have gotten and standing ovation from me, anyway.

"Obviously, the overriding issue is that we have a gun problem in the United States and -"

I'll be honest; that's about as far as I read. Is this guy paying attention at all? It seems to me he's either an idiot or and he's trying to appeal to idiots. Obviously, the overriding issue is that we have a mental health problem in the United States. Guns have been here a lot longer than the problems we've been seeing in recent years.

On another note, I grew up with free reign to all the gore and sex and language I could ever want. Plenty of it in real life, too. I didn't turn out so bad. Maybe. Okay, so I'm completely screwed up. I've been told that I have a serial killer vibe, and I can't disagree. But the neglect and abuse had a lot more to do with it than the games and movies that occupied the rest of my time.

Just spend some time sober with your kids. That's probably all they need.

"Just as there is profit in violence, there is enormous profit in pornography, and yet our films don't routinely depict graphic sex acts for two reasons: (1) The public wouldn't stand for it;"

O RLY? Films don't depict graphic sex acts because that gets you an NC-17 or X rating and movie theaters know there's not enough profit in those (the teen agers can't come see them)- and some folks would wail and complain. But I think the complainers would be ignored if there was enough $$$ in it.

"and (2) Critics would feel on solid ground deploring it."

Why don't critics feel solid ground deploring violence? Some critics do. They happen to be critics from places like Focus on the Family and American Family Association. So what?

What the author seems to be saying is US society already has a cultural norm of stigmatizing graphic sex scenes - which he's fine with. But we don't have the same norm for stigmatizing violence. And he thinks maybe it's time we start doing so. But, oh, that hurts his progressive, moral relativism, feelings.

Anyway, Since 1995, movies have gotten more violent and more "realistically" violent, video games have gotten more realistic, porn has become more easily available, drugs have gotten cheaper and more available and more weapons than even are in the hands of Americans.

We don't have a gun or violence problem any more than 1950, or 1850, for that matter. We have a media problem. We used to hear about the killings in the next town over, but rarely the town next to that. Nowadays, we're wringing our hands over killings from a world away. There was killings every day, back in them days, but we didn't read about it, or see it on the TV. Newspapers were 4 page editions (2 for want ads), TV was too interested in sitcoms, and news was a half-hour long. The media found out that news shows were cheaper to produce, AND people would watch, regardless how crass, or old, the items. If we start beating down the media onslaught, and stick to news you need to know, we wouldn't have this national paranoia.

/'Nuff said//That's why I read Fark...all the news I give a shait about///On that note, My gifted TF runs out tommorrow, I thank Eeek! for that. It was interesting to see the inside, but I'm good with the parking lot. It's not $5/mo better. Sorry.

By the by, This is a SF writer, not a Seattle guy. On the wetside of Washington, only Capitol Hill thinks like this. Most of us hunt, target shoot, or, at least, leave those who do alone. Guns aren't violent, People are. I'll shot dogs running loose in the woods during hunting season. I don't want skittish deer when I'm trying to bag one. I'll shoot you, if you take sound shots in my direction. I don't carry, so I'll not be in a raging gun war at the mall, but I support all those who do, as they'll draw fire while I get outta the way.

cherryl taggart:As someone trying desperately to un-do a few years of tolerance of violence to a small child, I am all for banning scenes of blood and gore. But, I don't need the help of anybody else to do it. I simply act like a grown-up and tell my kid, no, you don't need to watch that and you can't act like that. The only time I consider violence to be praiseworthy is in the defense of the defenseless, such as small kids, animals, elderly, handicapped, etc. I wish my kid would hurry up and get to puberty, so his mind starts craving the sight of boobies, and wanders away from blood and gore. But society has a tendency to think anyone who provides girlie mags to teen boys is a perv, so I guess I'll be labeled a perv in a few years.

If it assuages your conscience any, my mom got me a subscription - in my own name, no less - to Playboy for my 12th birthday.

AdrienVeidt:cherryl taggart: As someone trying desperately to un-do a few years of tolerance of violence to a small child, I am all for banning scenes of blood and gore. But, I don't need the help of anybody else to do it. I simply act like a grown-up and tell my kid, no, you don't need to watch that and you can't act like that. The only time I consider violence to be praiseworthy is in the defense of the defenseless, such as small kids, animals, elderly, handicapped, etc. I wish my kid would hurry up and get to puberty, so his mind starts craving the sight of boobies, and wanders away from blood and gore. But society has a tendency to think anyone who provides girlie mags to teen boys is a perv, so I guess I'll be labeled a perv in a few years.

If it assuages your conscience any, my mom got me a subscription - in my own name, no less - to Playboy for my 12th birthday.